I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!

I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!

I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!

I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!

In the common parlance, this characteristic is called "immersiveness", though I like your implication just fine.
With a coma corrector, I would have said the same thing about the 22mm. It's too bad it's been discontinued a long time. I guess the market preferred a smaller eyepiece and wasn't that enthusiastic about the 2" skirt (I loved it, sigh).

I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!

In the common parlance, this characteristic is called "immersiveness", though I like your implication just fine.
With a coma corrector, I would have said the same thing about the 22mm. It's too bad it's been discontinued a long time. I guess the market preferred a smaller eyepiece and wasn't that enthusiastic about the 2" skirt (I loved it, sigh).

It is interesting to read about the 22mm Panoptic. I have had one for a few years now, rarely use it. It just seems like the 20 mm Type 2 Nagler is an overall better performer, bigger, wider field of view, better corrected in a fast scope.

It is interesting to read about the 22mm Panoptic. I have had one for a few years now, rarely use it. It just seems like the 20 mm Type 2 Nagler is an overall better performer, bigger, wider field of view, better corrected in a fast scope.

Jon; that may well be, however the OP asked only about the 22 vs 24 Pan.

Both of these eyepieces are excellent, and very difficult to choose a winner. Like most eyepiece choices it comes down to personal preference.

I have a pair of Pan 24 for binoviewing. Went with the 24 for maximum true field of view in a 1.25 inch format. I also use if for my very wide field of view finder when combined with the Stellervue 80mm finder. In my main scopes I stick with the 2 inch eyepieces. I don't wear glasses and don't mind glueing my eyeball up to the glass.

They're both great eyepieces and I think most users would be happy with either one of them. The major reason I switched to the 24mm Pan when they first came out around 10 years ago was because of their much smaller size and lighter weight advantage which made them much more suitable for use with a binoviewer than the 22mm Pans were. Another disadvantage of the early Pans (i.e., their 22mm & 35mm models) is that they required you get a special adapter from Tele Vue in order to with a Barlow. I never did use mine with a Barlow so me me that was a non-issue.

The 24mm Pan also has a 8% wider TFOV at 16% larger true field area which is another advantage they have over the 22s.

Even thought both are rated as having 15mm of eye relief I agree with others that the 22mm seems to have provide a little advantage in this area. I also agree that it seems to provide a little more immersive view. And the 22mm Pan also provides a little more magnification and a slightly darker sky background. The 22mm Pan has one other property I like and that is I think it is the best looking eyepiece that Tele Vue or any other manufacturer has ever produced. It is instantly recognizable classic Tele Vue but it is not so large in size as to appear ungainly.

If I had to choose between the two I'd probably pick the 22mm if I was buying it just for single eyepiece viewing and if its heavier weight was not going to be an issue with the scope I was using it with. However, if I had present or future binoview use in mind as well, then I'd pick the 24mm.

Other than the differences one would expect because of the small difference in fl, the only noticeable difference is the 24 has a bit better edge correction. I used the 22 Pans to binoview and they were great performers but they are large, could be a problem if one has a prodigious proboscis. The other binoviewing issue is that the 2" skirt can interfere with the locking mechanism in some binoviewers. I went to the 24's and am very happy with my decision, but I would be a happy camper with either.

I had both at the same time; and had a very difficult time choosing which one to keep. They are both very excellent eyepieces, excellent contrast! I finally decided on the 22Pan, as it just seemed to be more "submersive" while looking thru it; meaning it seemed that you were drawn into the view moreso than with the 24Pan. Both are winners!

In the common parlance, this characteristic is called "immersiveness", though I like your implication just fine.
With a coma corrector, I would have said the same thing about the 22mm. It's too bad it's been discontinued a long time. I guess the market preferred a smaller eyepiece and wasn't that enthusiastic about the 2" skirt (I loved it, sigh).

The 2" skirt just threads off for those interested in 1-1/4" only operation. However, it does not change the weight very much (judging by feel alone).

A few years back I had the 24 Pan, 22 Pan, and 24 Brandon in house. Long story short, the 24 Pan was the one that got sold off. It was a great eyepiece but since all my scopes have 2" focusers the max true field aspect of the 24 never held any weight for me. Too easy just to pop in a 2" eyepiece and get even more field.

In addition to the 22 Pan immersiveness, I suppose a great deal of my opinion on this eyepiece is sentimental. The 22 Pan (along with the 9 mm T1 Nagler) was my first foray into the premium wide field world 20 some years ago. The 22 Pan was absolute magic in my f/9 Newtonian. It has never disappointed me in any other scope over the years.

As many have pointed out time moves on. A short while ago a nicely-priced 22 Nagler T4 came up on the 'Mart so I snagged it. I'm sure the A/B comparison will leave me very conflicted.

Jeff; yes, I'm very sentimental about my 22Pan. That & the 24Pan were the very first quality eyepieces I got. Interesting, I was a new member; and another member had listed both for sale. I wasn't sure which one would be the best for me; and this fantastic member sent me BOTH, to try for as long as I wished, until I made up my mind. She would not take payment at the time. Because of her trust in me, and that I really couldn't make my mind up quickly; I purchased both from her.

I've never forgotten that, so the 22Pan has another sentimental memory for me!

However, aside from this, the 22Pan is an awesome eyepiece that will thrill most looking thru it!

I did a shootout of both eyepieces a ways back. In my F/4.7 reflector the 22mm Pan had more of an "immersive" feel to it, and it had better eye relief. However, the 24mm Pan was a LOT sharper off axis. I prefer the 22mm LVW in my short FL scope as it is a LOT better off axis and everywhere else than the 22m Pan. Eye relief in the 22mm LVW is better as well once you take off the rubber eye guard.

The 22mm Panoptic is not very popular, really. Having sold approximately 80 eyepieces in the last year or so, I have a feel for where the market is based on how quickly eyepieces sell and how many nibbles I get. I've listed and relisted a 22mm Panoptic multiple times, even offering various trade options, with just a nibble or two, but no serious buyers. So whatever the sentiment about this out-of-print eyepiece, once you have it, you'll likely be stuck with it for quite a long while, so be sure that you really love it before taking the plunge.

Here is a partial list of eyepieces that sold much, much faster and garnered much more interest than the Panoptic:

It's not a bad eyepiece, really, but I much prefer the 22mm LVW to the 22mm Panoptic. I don't much care for the 24mm Panoptic. The shorter focal length Panoptic have poor ergonomics (24mm, 19mm and 15mm) due to the short eye relief wide field combination.

Here is a partial list of eyepieces that sold much, much faster and garnered much more interest than the Panoptic:

I think the 22mm Panoptic is a hard sell, it's competing against eyepieces that are considerably cheaper like the Meade Series 5000 SWAs that can be had for under $100. One has to be clear that spending close to $200 for the 22mm Panoptic is worth it. It comes down to separating the performance of the eyepiece versus the value of the eyepiece. A great deal is a good deal but not necessarily a great eyepiece.